There are many Orthodox on this forum who are not familiar with the teachings of the Church, but you should really first get to know them before posting your videos otherwise they and others will think you are yet another mindless zealot come to spread a message.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

What if the change in the Creed had been done the right way resulting in no schism. Would the Catholic Church still be in communion with the Orthodox or would a later problem still caused it?

Well, the filioque did not cause a schism when first introduced. The Photian Schism had other causes as well, primarily the Pope of Rome taking umbrage with the uncanonical deposition of St. Ignatius by the emperor and his replacement with Photios, who was a layman at the time. Later, when the filioque appeared in pope's systatic letter in the early 11th century, his name was not entered into the diptychs, but this didn't appear at the time as a schism over filioque. Polemical arguments at the time covered filioque with other things, but communion appears to have continued in large part. The major problem was papal supremacy. But even this wasn't a pressing issue until 1100, when the Crusaders, with no objection from the pope, replaced the Patriarch of Antioch with a Latin after capturing the city.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

You would do well to be more concerned about the scourge of the Moslems than of the innovative teachings of the Roman Catholics. While Eastern Orthodoxy may have theological disputes with Catholicism, the Catholic Church is not a bastion imposing evil upon the world. "Kill them with the sword," were the last words of the Moslem Prophet, a pedophile, his comments said in connection with his command to his followers to persuade non-Moslems to convert to his hearsay, as to those who refuse to convert to it.

Among other things, the video speaks of the several Orthodox condemnations of the Gregorian calendar. So according to the teaching on this video with regard to the calendar, does this mean then that any Christian, not just Roman Catholics, who observes the New Calendar date of Christmas as December 25 is anathematised, condemned, and eternally damned? I don't see anything about the Julian calendar mentioned in the Bible. Is this a teaching from apostolic times, or was this a novel teaching that developed over time in the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Among other things, the video speaks of the several Orthodox condemnations of the Gregorian calendar. So according to the teaching on this video with regard to the calendar, does this mean then that any Christian, not just Roman Catholics, who observes the New Calendar date of Christmas as December 25 is anathematised, condemned, and eternally damned? I don't see anything about the Julian calendar mentioned in the Bible. Is this a teaching from apostolic times, or was this a novel teaching that developed over time in the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Do not be deceived. I am 99.9% sure incognito777 is what is known charitably as a 'schismatic'.

Among other things, the video speaks of the several Orthodox condemnations of the Gregorian calendar. So according to the teaching on this video with regard to the calendar, does this mean then that any Christian, not just Roman Catholics, who observes the New Calendar date of Christmas as December 25 is anathematised, condemfned, and eternally damned? I don't see anything about the Julian calendar mentioned in the Bible. Is this a teaching from apostolic times, or was this a novel teaching that developed over time in the Eastern Orthodox Church?

It was not only the Orthodox but Protestants too who objected in the past to the Papal calendar innovation. Indeed there were riots here in England when it was eventually introduced with the populace demanding back their 11 days. Even in my lifetime I heard reference to Old Christmas from English folk who no idea about Eastern Orthodoxy. The calendar, the liturgical and festal unity that went with it was a sanctification of time.

What if the change in the Creed had been done the right way resulting in no schism. Would the Catholic Church still be in communion with the Orthodox or would a later problem still caused it?

The Byzantine Church could tolerate no difference. The Council of Trullo for example condemned each and every difference they could find with the Armenians and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the Latins. Either the Latin Church would have been Hellenised and Byzantinised or the schism would have happened anyway, even if the Latins would have given up Papal Supremacy.

BTW, pertaining to earlier posts, I do believe Vlad the Impaler was Eastern Orthodox.

For a time at least.

Pertaining to earlier posts, if true, Vlad was normal Orthodox and then got bit and became RC and spread it. the only thing this proves is that Vlad was not original vampire.

According to this thread, RC is condemned and anathematised by the Orthodox Church. But if Vlad Tepes was Roman Catholic at the time of death, why did the Orthodox Church allow him to be buried in the Orthodox monastery of Snagov?

BTW, pertaining to earlier posts, I do believe Vlad the Impaler was Eastern Orthodox.

For a time at least.

Pertaining to earlier posts, if true, Vlad was normal Orthodox and then got bit and became RC and spread it. the only thing this proves is that Vlad was not original vampire.

According to this thread, RC is condemned and anathematised by the Orthodox Church. But if Vlad Tepes was Roman Catholic at the time of death, why did the Orthodox Church allow him to be buried in the Orthodox monastery of Snagov?

Maybe it was Vlad Dracul, not Vlad Tepes. We need augustin.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

BTW, pertaining to earlier posts, I do believe Vlad the Impaler was Eastern Orthodox.

For a time at least.

Pertaining to earlier posts, if true, Vlad was normal Orthodox and then got bit and became RC and spread it. the only thing this proves is that Vlad was not original vampire.

According to this thread, RC is condemned and anathematised by the Orthodox Church. But if Vlad Tepes was Roman Catholic at the time of death, why did the Orthodox Church allow him to be buried in the Orthodox monastery of Snagov?

BTW, pertaining to earlier posts, I do believe Vlad the Impaler was Eastern Orthodox.

For a time at least.

Pertaining to earlier posts, if true, Vlad was normal Orthodox and then got bit and became RC and spread it. the only thing this proves is that Vlad was not original vampire.

According to this thread, RC is condemned and anathematised by the Orthodox Church. But if Vlad Tepes was Roman Catholic at the time of death, why did the Orthodox Church allow him to be buried in the Orthodox monastery of Snagov?

Lol - Augustin is his own person, but the other two are one and the same guy.

They say that people started calling him "Dracul" (the devil < draco = dragon in Romanian), because he went over to the side of the devil ("s-a dat cu dracul"). He was also a member of some chivalresque society called the "Order of the Dragon".

The theory is that in the eyes of the people he was "of the devil" (al dracu'). The play on words is tempting. But it's not necessarily bad or an insult if you call someone that in Romanian - it can just mean smart or capable, not easily defeated.